Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code2000 (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as this went through DRV only one month ago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code2000

Code2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted on the grounds that it was not notable, and then un-deleted in a deletion review that failed to actually demonstrate that the subject was in fact notable. So I'm nominating it for deletion again for exactly the same reason as the first time. The article is still a basic stub (though it looks larger due to the lists of Unicode blocks), and I can't see anyone expanding it. Ptcamn 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The DRV barely a month ago resulted in an overwhelming consensus that Code2000 is a highly notable font, with ample supporting documentation. User Ptcamn (talk · contribs) was also responsible for the first nomination, and was aware of the DRV. This re-nomination is a pointless waste of time (or maybe WP:POINT?), and should be speedily closed as a keep. --KSmrq^T 11:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What supporting documentation? I see none. --Ptcamn 11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. I couldn't view many of the special symbols on Wikipedia (using Firefox under Linux) until I learned about this font. It's the most complete freeware/shareware implementation of the Unicode standard that exists in the world today. What could be more notable than that? DavidCBryant 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Having coverage in reliable sources. Help viewing special symbols on Wikipedia goes in Help:Special characters. --Ptcamn 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The DRV was unanimous. WP:N is only a guideline, and it seems that this font is important enough to include without meeting its requirements. In addition to the ample evidence of importance provided during the DRV, note that the font is recommended as a "useful resource" by the unicode consortium. JulesH 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Nobody does formal reviews of fonts. Designers talk about the appropriateness of a font in a specific setting. Code2000 doesn't get any merit on its aesthetics. It gets mentioned because it is one of the most comprehensive pan-Unicode fonts that is available. Those mentions are to use it as a fallback font, if a font for a specific Unicode Subrange is not installed on one's computer. I'd also suggest that with an AfD 22 June 2007. Deleted 27 June 2007, and Deletion overruled 16 July 2007, the nominator is WP:POINT.(I thought that they had been previous AfDs, but I can't find them.)jonathon 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is an unusual and widely useful font. —Michael Z. 2007-08-19 15:10 Z

• Speedy Keep. This is a notable font, which gets a significant mention in the Unicode consortium resources page, as well as three other pages in the Unicode Consortium site. It is shareware, with sufficiently liberal conditions that it is almost freeware; hence very widely disseminated. It is widely cited in many unaffiliated sites as an easy way to get coverage for particular languages. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.